I have no objection to
2) Fix the problem by making method="get" the default, which also aligns
with the web and doesn't introduce another error-type
HTML 4.01 says method is required; XHTML 1.0 says it defaults to "get"
so that would be the better solution.
However, I definitely object to our current practice (and saying that we
just did it isn't good enough) of adding new error types to signal
markup errors.
The schema and the prose specify the lexical representation, and if it a
processor determines it doesn't match the schema, it should not process
the document. Otherwise we're re-inventing document validation with DOM
events.
________________________________
From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:38 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Erik Bruchez; Forms WG
Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method
No we don't, though that's a little like asking "why make something
better if it still won't be perfect?"
It's also not really the same issue. If you find a schema violation
like the one you're showing, the usual web behavior of ignoring the
non-understandable content is what happens most of the time, and the
spec doesn't say much on the point.
This situation is different because the spec does say something
definitive because we're talking about a known attribute/element pair
and how it is processed by a defined processing model. Except we didn't
say exactly what to do in the error scenario.
If you look at step 5 of submit processing, we say to get the method.
If you look at step 6 of submit processing, we say to get the resource.
In diffs since CR, the WG decided to fix the problem of not specifying a
resource by specifically providing an xforms-submit-error with
error-type of resource-error.
See the diff mark in this section:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit-ev
t-submit
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit-e
vt-submit>
Now we have exactly the same situation in step 5 as we fixed in step 6.
This is the context in which I meant that we have three solutions:
1) Ignore the problem because there are other schema violations we don't
cover and we'll never be perfect
2) Fix the problem by making method="get" the default, which also aligns
with the web and doesn't introduce another error-type
3) Fix the problem by making an xforms-submit-error with an error-type.
#1 and #3 have about the same amount of merit in this case. #2 seems
better to me.
The addition of the error for absence of resource was very useful
because an author can now use a resource-less submission to test
validity of data. If the error-type is validation-error, then data is
invalid. If the error-type is resource-error, then the data is valid.
But for method, there is no utility in the error, so #1 and #3 get about
the same mileage. But #2 simplifies authoring, aligns to current web
default, and makes one less place in the spec where we tell implementers
that authors are required to do something but then don't say how to deal
with the error case.
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer>
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw>
From: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
To: John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Forms WG"
<public-forms@w3.org>
Date: 02/20/2009 03:54 PM
Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission
method
________________________________
What do we tell processors to do in this situation:
<xf:model>
<xf:fnord />
</xf:model >
?
________________________________
From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com <mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com> ]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:40 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Erik Bruchez; Forms WG
Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method
That *is* what we say now, in prose. The problem is that we then don't
say what happens when the requirement is not met. It's a requirement on
authors not on implementers, so we either have to tell implementers what
to do when authors don't meet the requirement or the implementations
will not all behave the same authors don't meet the requirement.
Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer>
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw>
From: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
To: John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Forms WG"
<public-forms@w3.org>
Date: 02/20/2009 03:35 PM
Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission
method
________________________________
Ah, I checked the 1.0 schema; of course. In Relax NG you can specify
that one or the other must be required.
I hear a later revision of XML Schemas allows co-occurrence constraints
as well. Why not just say it in prose then?
4) A conforming document must have either a method attribute or a method
element.
________________________________
From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com <mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com> ]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:32 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Erik Bruchez; Forms WG
Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method
Hi Leigh,
The problem is that we already say, from the schema perspective, that
the method attribute is optional. This is because we also have a method
element child of submission, which can computationally determine the
method with the value attribute.
Further, because the method attribute exists, the method element child
is not required either, again from the schema perspective.
So we have this situation where neither the attribute nor the element is
required, but we claim that one is required, but we don't say what
happens if you don't put one. The options are
1) Make method="get" the default if neither the attribute nor the
element is given.
2) Specify xforms-submit-error (which we did for the resource
attribute/element pair; see the diff on step 7 of submit event
processing)
3) Continue to not say anything and let implementations pick their own
way of handling the problem (some will do #1, others #2, and others ...)
Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer>
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw>
From: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
To: John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, "Erik Bruchez"
<ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Cc: "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
Date: 02/20/2009 03:19 PM
Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission
method
________________________________
Or leave unspecified behavior and let the user agent handle it however
else it handles Schema violations.
<xsd:attribute name="method" use="required">
________________________________
From: public-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org> ] On Behalf Of John Boyer
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:40 PM
To: Erik Bruchez
Cc: Forms WG
Subject: Re: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method
Hi Erik,
Another more compelling possibility is to simply say that "get" is the
default method. This is simpler editorially, does not introduce a
further error-type, and aligns with the default currently used on the
web. Does that sound good?
Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer>
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw>
From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
To: Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>
Date: 02/18/2009 04:17 PM
Subject: Re: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission
method
________________________________
That sounds reasonable except that it is a little annoying to have to
add a new "method-error" error type, since this type does not exist yet.
-Erik
On Feb 18, 2009, at 1:54 PM, John Boyer wrote:
>
> At some time since CR, it was noticed that we did not say what a
> submission would do if the resource URI was not specified, and we
> have corrected the 1.1 spec to say that you get an xforms-submit-
> error with error-type of resource-error
>
> I was doing a code review on Ubiquity XForms implementation of the
> method element, and noticed that the 1.1 spec has the same problem
> for the method. The spec says that one of the method attribute or
> method element must be specified, but it does not say what happens
> if the author violates the requirement. It looks like a simple
> omission error, i.e. clearly you should ge tan xforms-submit-error
> with an error-type of method-error.
>
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
> Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Victoria Software Lab
> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
>
> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer>
> Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw>
>
--
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/ <http://www.orbeon.com/>